Quote:
Originally Posted by Hog1
It's not a trap or anything Joe, but I am curious as to what part of the second amendment, or Constitution speaks the the "heavy regulation of gun ownership". I gave it a once over and did not notice that.
|
The expectation of heavy regulation is my opinion based on the language of the amendment and a
very brief review of some of the cases interpreting it. Given that the language speaks of individual gun ownership being necessary
due tothe collective need of a "well-regulated" militia, it is my opinion that a gun owner should expect there to be significant governmental regulations in place to ensure and protect the
public's interest in a well regulated militia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hog1
The second A also provides for the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". That is in addition to "a well regulated militia, and not subject to a collective interpretation of any kind, that I can see.
|
As I noted above, the individual right springs from and is given its
reason d'etre from the collective need. There is substantial caselaw on this and the debate as to personal right v. collective right appears to go to the core of most 2A debates. As I understand it (again, based on a very cursory review of the law), the federal courts have generally held that the right to keep and bear arms is a "collective" right rather than an "individual" right.
Both from the language of the amendment and from the caselaw, I think it is pretty clear that, no matter what else is true about it, the "right to keep and bear arms", does not and was never intended to grant individuals unfettered and unlimited access to and/or owership of guns.
Personally, while I have no problem with lawful gun ownership, I am very comfortable with the government reasonably regulating their use and availability. As with all things subject to regulation, it is the "reasonableness" of it that comes into play.
For the record, I live in downtown Baltimore and, while my neighborhood is fine, some of the surrounding neighborhoods are kinda seedy. I have seen guns fired in public and often heard gunfire throughout the city. Quite frankly, the bad guys are walking around with semi and automatic weapons. Unless I go around with an unconcealed .50 cal., they pretty much got me outgunned. If I get into a situation where they intend me harm, owning or carrying a gun would not stop them from doing so. Further, it might only ratchet up their need to show that they're the big man and cause them to get even bigger guns.
To me, it is appropriate to both ensure that government does not have a monopoly on the use and ownership of guns
and to regulate individual ownership of guns to ensure that the government can properly carry out its duty to protect its citizenry.
Enforce the laws on the books. Send anyone using a handgun in the course of a crime to jail for a significant amount of un-paroleable minimum time (to me, "use" includes brandishing the weapon). Send anyone
firing an automatic weapon in an unauthorized manner to jail (generally, i got no problem with the ownership of automatic weaponry - it's the use of it that I object to). Send anyone who uses an automatic weapon in the course of a crime to jail w/o parole for a long time.
While it's true that people kill people - guns sure make it a lot easier. For that reason, their use and ownership should be "well regulated" (even if you're not in the militia
)